Where to armor on the B-17 bombers to reduce losses: Surprising Combat Study Results

WWII US Bombers were armored mainly to account for Projectiles and FLAK fragments from behind and the sides. The 8th Army Air Forces studied the Bomber’s damage distribution from FLAK, machine gun and cannon fire. The study results indicated most FLAK damage Originated from Below the bomber and enemy aircraft gun and cannon fire was evenly distributed over the surfaces. This led to the conclusion the armor should be placed protecting from front or bottom of the aircraft. Also to reduce stragglers, engine armor should be considered since 50% of bomber losses are stragglers. Most stragglers are caused from engine failure.

[@johndanger8717]

So many people in the comment sections of “Masters of the Air” clips need to head over to this channel instead…

[@smokerjim]

​@@Rakkchaser99wow, that's like dropping out of a full scholarship college course on the basis that your lecturers don't look like Taylor Swift

[@TheCrapOnYourStrapOn]

This channel is a refreshing break from the insanity of KZbin

[@horusmorus5588]

@@fuckoff4705 hes got the british fascist party as his icon lmao

[@TheCrapOnYourStrapOn]

@@fuckoff4705 is it? Explain your reasoning behind that comment

[@phineascampbell3103]

No you're wrong, and a complete fool.

[@Nyllsor]

I agree! :)

[@TheCrapOnYourStrapOn]

@@Nyllsor well I say that but I am deeply entrenched in the insanity of KZbin, among other places. My sister is a 250lb green haired pansexual socialist and actually got me into the culture war by telling me I was evil for not supporting her beliefs. Bit of a backfire as I’m no longer neutral. Anyway I love history even though it’s very different depending upon who teaches it

[@joeverna5459]

In July of 2000. I flew in a B17 over NE Pennsylvania. It was a 20 minute ride. The things that suprised me were the engine noise and how thin the metal was on the outside of the plane. It seemed about as thick as cardboard on a cereal box. I can't imagine having bullets and flack passing right through the plane. I realized how brave these men really were. Thank you for your dedication and sacrifice.

[@dukecraig2402]

It was .032" thick aluminum sheet (thirty two thousandths), a fella I used to work with's dad was a waist gunner on a B17, he told me his dad said that on the inside you could see the ink stenciling on the aluminum sheet that it's marked with from the mill that produced the sheet, since it was only .032" thick the crew named their B17 "Thin Skin". He was telling me one day that the gunner on the other side from his dad would always crouch down below the window when they were flying through flak, one day his dad told the guy "You know, the skin of that thing isn't gonna stop any shrapnel from the flak, you might as well stand up and enjoy the view".

[@akyukon]

​@@dukecraig2402 Cool story! 👍

[@stevecausey545]

Another great video..I also am surprised by the armor conclusions...lots of blood and tears to get the statistuions there conclusions

[@tomhenry897]

Til you know about chinooks Then won’t get on one

[@philjames3555]

@@michaelbizon444 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Mull_of_Kintyre_Chinook_crash

[@alanm.4298]

My Dad was a B29 pilot in WWII, flying out of Saipan. On one mission his tail gunner was hit. I don't know (or don't recall) if it was flak or fire from an enemy airplane. Dad was copilot on that mission and was later awarded the bronze star for his efforts to rescue the tail gunner. He had to crawl through a narrow unpressurized tunnel to help the gunner, then drag the man back through the same tunnel to the central pressurized cabin. Unfortunately the tail gunner did not survive his wounds.

[@davidg3944]

That was a noble effort by your dad. A man of character and bravery, wish we had more like him now.

[@iroll]

@@davidg3944 That you don't know many says more about the company you keep than the state of the world.

[@davidg3944]

@@iroll Your name should start with a "T" to match your contribution...

[@blockmasterscott]

5:08 Just imagine, with all those millions of armed servicemen and women overseas doing their bit in WW2, with the insane logistics, it was all done on pen and paper. All of it. That never ceases to amaze me.

[@fahey5719]

Not really. IBM mechanical computers were used big time for such tasks. Even Germans used them, a lot. German brand was Hollerith, from the guy who invented the famous IBM punched card. There is a book: >>> Published in 2001, with numerous subsequent expanded editions, Black outlined the key role of IBM's technology in The Holocaust genocide committed by the German Nazi regime, by facilitating the regime's generation and tabulation of punch cards for national census data, military logistics, ghetto statistics, train traffic management, and concentration camp capacity.[1]

[@johngaither9263]

Dad arrived on Tinian late in the war. He only flew 8 missions. He said by the time he arrived that Japanese interceptors would not fly into a formation of B-29 airplanes unless they planned a ramming attack. They would loiter at long range and fire 20mm rounds at the bombers. Their deflection shooting skills were so poor they were not able to score any hits. The B-29 gunners occasionally lucked into some hits with .50 caliber rounds which were usually pretty deadly to the Japanese aircraft.

[@rzr2ffe325]

Yeah the Japanese failed to rotate their experienced pilots out from the front to teach and train their younger pilots. So once the good pilots were killed, they really struggled. It also didn’t help that their planes lacked self sealing fuel tanks. So they’d catch fire rather easily and rarely be able to salvaged. As such, going through airframes and pilots, not securing their own skies was basically asking to get nuked.

[@Tony.795]

@@rzr2ffe325 The germans had a similar problem with aircrew.

[@richardbeckenbaugh1805]

The Germans only had one pilot training school until late in the war. As soon as the war started, the school could not replace casualties fast enough. It was not until late 1943 that more pilot training programs were established. By that time the military was starting to feel the pinch of dwindling fuel supplies.

[@williamlloyd3769]

Always good to see science/ analysis versus survivor bias

[@monopalle5768]

I came for the survivor bias story :-)

[@alltat]

And analysis of the original cause of the bomber loss. It may have been shot down by a fighter, but the reason that happened was because of flak damage that prevented it from staying in formation.

[@somerandomnification]

Interviewing survivors does not get rid of survivor bias. Surely they reduced it by including interviews of crews that returned instead of relying solely on damage to planes that managed to return, but they still didn't have the data from the planes that were lost with no survivors.

[@dzzope]

This reminded me immediately about a video that covered the b24s survivability the other day. Survivor bias was a big thing that far far too many people missed judging by so many of the comments.

[@monopalle5768]

@@somerandomnification But it does provide a PARTIAL data set, and when you overlay that data on the schematics, you can EXTRAPOLITE vital parts :-)

[@kevinwhitehead6076]

I sincerely hope that the new series will generate more subscribers for your channel! I consider it one of the most informative and interesting channels on this platform!

[@santossteven97]

My grandfather was a pilot in the Luftwaffe from 1944-1945, he flew a Focke Wulf 190. From April 1944 to February 1945 he shot down 4 B-17 bombers, 5 B-24 bombers and 3 P-51 Mustangs, often narrowly escaping death himself. In January 1945 he was shot down by a P-51 Mustang and had to make an emergency landing. He was just able to escape from the plane, but had a serious shoulder injury and shrapnel wounds. He then came to the hospital and was happy that the war was finally over in May 1945.

[@PhilbyFavourites]

He sounds like one of the good guys. A skilled flier and a grandad to be proud of 👍🏻👍🏻

[@battlefield_hackers_exposed]

​@@PhilbyFavouritesyou talk like he was not part of an army that usurped Europe and waged a genocidal war ...jesus

[@santossteven97]

@@battlefield_hackers_exposed My grandfather was a simple soldier in the air force who was trained as a pilot. Back then there was compulsory military service and men were drafted. He actually wanted to study and become an engineer, which he later did in 1948-1951. He never wanted a war, he actually just wanted to live in peace and start a family.

[@santossteven97]

@@battlefield_hackers_exposed What the Americans did in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya is also a genocide of millions of civilians, but you still can't lump an entire country and all people together, the majority of Germans were simple people who wanted to live in peace just like that the majority of Americans.

[@David-ic4by]

Wow. He flew what many consider the best German fighter, and one of the best overall fighters of the war. And I have no doubt of your words: so many young men were not ideologues, but just men caught up in a conflict not of their own making.

[@Slaktrax]

The amount of detail you manage to research and upload for us that find your channel interesting is amazing. Thank you 🙂

[@AviationHorrors]

After binging on quite a few of your episodes, I’m impressed by the simple quality and straightforward presentation - no gimmicky graphics or obnoxious self-promo, just good info.

[@jastrapper190]

I want an ejection seat. lol. That must have been the number one fear. Being unable to get out of the bomber bouncing off the ceiling as you free fall hurtling to the ground. Stuck in a ball turret or a severed tail section. Etc etc. what’s worse is that all the remaining crews were witness. I was truly shocked to learn how high the strategic bomber losses were in WWII for America. Their survival rates were nightmarish. That’s always what fascinates me. How men go out knowing they are most likely going to die or be injured. In Iraq around 2006 it got so bad that when we went out a platoon of four LAV’s… experience had shown that not all four were coming back into the FOB on their own wheels. They were put on bigger low boy transport vehicles due to IED and mine damage (marines were dying or being seriously hurt in them). The number of missions and number of incidents we had made it almost a certainty. Not everyone will be coming back. I remember it was the most terrifying “statistic” or realization to make. Nobody needed to give us any official numbers… we knew because we were living it and seeing it happen. The odds are not looking good. Excellent video.

[@seafodder6129]

As always, love your use of pirmary sources!

[@ypaulbrown]

aways wonderful content, it really shows the hard work you put into these, best wishes, Paul

[@WWIIUSBombers]

Many thanks!

[@bartonstano9327]

Engine armor suggestion was a big surprise to me.

[@tsmgguy]

Hits from fighters apparently were random, but what sticks in the mind of course are Luftwaffe gun camera films where hits seem to be concentrated on B-17 fuselages and crew stations.

[@merlin51h84]

I would hazard to guess that bombers on the way to the target would obviously still have their bombs onboard so hitting the aircraft towards the centre makes sense as they would want to hit the bombs. On the return leg the engines and wings would be the things to hit.

[@tsmgguy]

@@merlin51h84 But what the presentation makes clear is that MG and 20mm hits were evenly distributed on the bomber airframes. Hits were not concentrated on engines, the center of mass, or obvious aiming points.

[@unprofound]

@@tsmgguy Exactly. Under duress, pilots really weren't accurate enough to target any part of the B-17s and B-24s.

[@aquarius5719]

Under stress a shooter with a pistol could miss a target 5 feet away.

[@calvingifford9442]

My Dad was on the flight of B-17's coming into Hawaii when the Japanese attacked. He got pretty lucky. Later, he had to bail out of a different B-17 over New Guinea. Was very lucky he was uninjured and sighted by a Coast Watcher as he came down. His luck ran out over the Southern Philippines in a B-24 bombing Mindanao, being injured before bailing out and running into a young Japanese soldier soon after reaching the ground. He spent quite a bit of time in the hospital and was never able to fly a mission after that. Great video!!

[@JK-rv9tp]

Farking brilliant. Really. Your channel is a gem.

[@scottterry1659]

Thank you, this series has been very informative. I never thought much about how the planes got shot down but this channel has helped me to better understand the bomber losses

[@michaelbizon444]

It's no wonder the Mighty 8th took over 80,000 casualties flying missions over Northern Europe. This might be why I always heard that bomber crews sat on their flack jackets. Fragments from below and no armor there.

[@johngaither9263]

My friend's dad was a B-17 pilot instructor. He requested combat assignments frequently but was always denied. He said for the life of him he couldn't figure out where that damned many pilots were going and what they were doing! The government was pretty tight lipped about many things during that war.

[@sununtaschnittker6469]

One of my teachers in high school had been a B-29 pilot in WWII and had flown missions over Japan. He said he sat on a flak jacket when they thought they were being shot at. He said once over a city he had to maneuver out of his place in the squadron to avoid another plane and it put his plane into the smoke cloud of the city fire. He said it filled the aircraft with smoke that smelled like burning hair - fried people.

[@deathsheadknight2137]

@@johngaither9263 from The Iron Curtain Over America: Re: Directive M-65, May 21, of the National Production Authority "Still it was not until WW2 that the manipulators of the National Democratic party hit on a really effective way of destroying a large portion of our literary heritage and its high values of morality and patriotism. Since most classics have a steady rather than rapid sale and are not subject to quick reprints even in normal times, and since many potential readers of these books were not in college, but in the armed forces, few editions of such works were reprinted during the war. At this juncture the government ordered plates to be destroyed on all books not reprinted within four years. The edict was almost a death blow to our culture, for as old books in libraries wear out very few of them can be reprinted at modern costs for printing and binding." "The order to melt book plates on the pretense that copper is needed for war is the smartest way to suppress books ever invented. It is much more clever than Hitlr's burning of books. The public never sees the melting of plates in private foundries. All the metal from all the book plates in America would not fight one minor engagement. But people do not know that. They do not even know that book plates have been ordered melted down!'"

[@RichardHinds-qs2mi]

Another great video brother. As I’ve told you from the beginning, good work, ur providing a great service.

[@jerryjeromehawkins1712]

Absolutely brilliant video. Bomber armor plate is something I've always been curious about. Thanks so much. Subscribed. 👍🏾🇺🇸

[@828enigma6]

Some bright one suggested examining strikes on returning aircraft as to location. This sounded good until it was suggested that the locations least struck should the most armored, which made sense. They were evaluating aircraft who made it back, not the ones who suffered fatal strikes didn't.

[@ostwelt]

Very useful information; and, no would not have guessed the results of this correctly! Thank you for putting up the whole page of document as a very interesting read. Good work as ever.

[@rayschoch5882]

VERY interesting, and occasionally surprising. Well done.

[@TK-ff5kc]

The fuel tanks in the wings and the oxygen canisters sitting behind the pilots would have been my pick for armor.

[@jayfrank1913]

Nice, well researched content!

[@tfogelson3139]

While researching the drawings of the B-17 G for a repair of a bird strike on "Texas Raiders" leading edge, I ran across a drawing of a Flak Blanket. I do not remember size or if the weight was given, but it was a heavy canvas with pockets sewn on it that contained small overlapping steel plates. If I remember correctly the plates were about 2x4 and it looked as if the blanket was for the waist gunner position. The drawings were Boeing drawings for the G model.

[@mdog111]

Thanks for this particularly informative 'deep dive'.

[@robertharper3754]

As always, wonderful work!!!

[@garywatson9976]

Very interesting!! Really enjoy this KZbin channel!!

[@well-blazeredman6187]

Fascinating, intelligent video. I gather that those doing 'OA' for RAF Bomber Command were similarly concerned about not placing too much weight on damage assessments of aircraft that had managed to return home.

[@cabanford]

Great channel. Actual well presented information (not just the same old rehashed with some horrible dramatic music) ❤

[@thomasroutson3046]

You cover so many great points with your videos! I am now wondering if post WWII bombers utilized any of the lessons learned information? I worked on B-52s in the early 70s and don't recall much armor in them. Electronics and 4, 50 cals in the tail were about all the protection they had. Keep up the great work,!

[@nightjarflying]

B-52 electronic countermeasures were pretty effective - used as a strategic nuclear bomber the speed is most important as only a few B-52s need to get through to target. Suicide missions essentially.

[@Absaalookemensch]

Surprising and logical. Thank you. Well made videos.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

Flak also stressed the bomber crew effecting efficacy the randomness of waiting for a direct hit etc and there was no fighting back as with attacking a/c a great moral booster

[@NarbonneGauchoBoingo]

Good job finding those stats. Yes, I was surprised!

[@FAMUCHOLLY]

Excellently done as usual. Thanks!

[@m0fr001]

Great insights. Really fascinating stuff.

[@ChrisCoombes]

I would have been one of those crew members asking for armour instead of the engines. Just goes to show the power of analysis. Thanks for the video.

[@tokencivilian8507]

Very interesting and informative. Facts are a funny thing - way different than expectations. Great stuff.

[@TobinTwinsHockey]

I heard once that the damage of returning fighters and bombers were studied and someone pointed out that they should not up-armor the damaged areas of the surviving craft but rather look at the undamaged areas. Logic being, they already took a hit in those areas and survived, but the lost aircraft may have been hit elsewhere resulting in a loss.

[@rbaxter286]

Which is an utter MYTH. The author made NO recommendations in writing or in conversations. The USAF TOOK NONE, EITHER. He ALSO said it was too difficult to analyze accurately because of ALL THE MANY FAILURE MODES for engines, particularly. This is just another internet "Yeah, but actually ..." story that makes the teller feel smarter than everyone and especially The Experts. Self-aggrandizing amateur anedcote-based braying, in almost all cases. The actual fault-tree/risk analysis report can be found online, but it needs to be hunted down.

[@N_Wheeler]

Keith referred to 'survivor bias' at 4:05 in the video.

[@paulwertheim4453]

@@rbaxter286 It's not a myth, it's just not output from the USAAF. The relevant report is "A method of estimating plane vulnerability based on damage of survivors" written by Abraham Wald and was commissioned by the USN. It's a pretty seminal work in statistical analysis, operational research and behavioral science.

[@TobinTwinsHockey]

@@rbaxter286 Jesus dude relax. I said it was something I HEARD once but did not claim that I knew better. Good lord, lay off of the Red Bull.

[@PhilbyFavourites]

@@rbaxter286wow… you must be a true PTSD survivor I feel sorry for you. And of course you’ll hate people for that too…

[@dragonsbreath1984]

Great and informative vid bro!

[@davidprince1138]

I had heard ead that pilots and others who sat in the main hull area scrounged for additional armor plate to sit on to provide more protection for their genitalia.

[@djackmanson]

It's interesting that the primary source mentions the tension between statistically-based best practice and morale. If I was risking my life every second night over Europe I think I'd want as much armour near me as I could get, no matter what the figures said. To put it another way, feelings don't care about your facts.

[@unprofound]

The report and your gut feeling say the same thing; the men would have been shaken to lose their armor. Stats be damned.

[@michauui]

this is so interesting : while more armor of the engines would more sense to save crews lifes, more armor for the crew would give them better morale (though not as effective). that's amazing!

[@mhpjii]

Fascinating . . . again. Thanks.

[@BruceGCharlton]

Superb video - and, yes - very surprising!

[@pwa8453]

Great work!

[@Gefionius]

Very nice vid, thank you!

[@SEAKPhotog]

Great stuff. Thanks!

[@w.ericwatt2987]

Your entries are highly informative...this one was a surprise. I wonder why the common bomb load was 12 500lb bombs for a total of 6,000 lbs, when the max load was 8,000 lbs, which easily allowed for the additional armor mentioned on the YB-40. Statistically speaking lives would have been saved. I'm not sure the Eight Air Force was all that worried about losing planes and crews. These Boys were expendable, highly expendable. Brave beyond comprehension.

[@zedoktor979]

It really stands to reason that the bottom of the aircraft would be the most vulnerable to flak. When the shell explodes the fragments still carry their upward velocity. Fragments that strike the bottom of the aircraft would have that additional kinetic energy. Similarly, hits originating from the from also have the additional relative velocity of the aircraft itself. The safest angle to receive a hit from would be behind and above…

[@guilhermepereira2352]

Great channel

[@bertofnuts1132]

Interesting story. It proves wrong a story I have often seen/read about "survivor bias" where protections were added without results where the returning bombers had the most impacts, until some "mathematician" figured out that the important one where the bombers that didn't return, so they added protection where the returning bomber had no impacts.

[@xmeda]

This shows why head-on attacks using planes like FW-190A8 were so devastating in case they hit fuselage.

[@mode1charlie170]

Yes, that and the fact the bullets and cannon fire had an extra 500 mph velocity added to them due to the closing speeds of the two aircraft.

[@Irish_For_Life1842]

1) The effort was put in to try to eliminate crews bias on the study. Would there not be other possible biases involved? Everyone has biases including me. What control would they have of other possible biases? One bias should be expected within the military. If it is known what the command is expecting on a study, you can get that result to make the higher ups in command happy. 2) Germans studied downed B-17s. There are even photos of captured B-17s in Nazi markings. After their study of the plane, tactics changed based upon where the weaknesses were. Would not the tactics have adjusted to this new proposed plan? I would anticipate the worst possible outcome of their decisions. 3) Hopefully I can adequately express the logical conundrum that is faced in this study. You have a plane that has 6 items that could cause the loss of it. These items are a, b, c, d, e & f. If you protected a, b & c, then by default d, e & f would be the most common cause of losing the plane. This would work the same if you chose alternate items to protect. How then can I say that the real solution is to switch the protection to d, e & f. The real question is how to make a real test to solve this issue. I have a great love for those who serve. Many of my own family have served where I was able to speak to them about their service. Learning of their own hardships and experiences would bring me to tears. 😢 PLEASE remember those who serve(d) everyday. There is no Fourth Of July celebration without them. So much has been sacrificed for Freedom. Do everything legally to preserve liberty in the USA. There is no place to run to if Freedom dies here and it almost has.😢😢

[@charlesbland1073]

Great information.

[@tsufordman]

As soon as you showed the armor locations and thickness, I immediately thought that the armor was 90% for moral boosting. But given that they were built with the idea of being self sufficient, I guess those locations made since initially.

[@FlakeSE]

Amazingly resilient machines all things considered, did those statistical reports count how many fragments the armour plates stopped?

[@ryanw1433]

That was fascinating

[@CornyCF]

Whats about frindly fire? They make damage to? Is there a statistics

[@phineascampbell3103]

When sources talk about damage from links, they're talking about the links between bullets in the machine gun belts, right? That's mad, that even just those represent a danger!

[@szauszabolcs5148]

Wow. I live in the city where the plane at 9:00 image had the direct flak hit. The city is Debrecen, in Hungary. Small world!

[@dukenukem8381]

good reporting

[@jamesbarca7229]

I did not realize until looking at the chart at 7:30 that most bomber crewmen wore chest parachutes.

[@martingenerous1678]

So were any of these recommendations adopted?? and when?

[@scullystie4389]

I can only assume that the penalties to aircraft performance would have been noticeable if the engines had an extra 1350 pounds of armor attached to them, even if that meant removing armor from somewhere else. How would that affect airflow, cooling, and handling? Also makes me wonder, if armor was only mounted to engines and essential equipment, if aircrews would have started jury-rigging plates of their own for protection. Reminds me of the "all or nothing" armor schemes of certain warships.

[@gospyro]

Watching this makes me curious about the number of hits on the armed areas, like around the waist gunners, that did NOT penetrate them armor. This would show times where the armor possibly saved someone. Whereas, if there were not very many 'dents' in that armor, then that supports the idea that it's not really doing much but adding weight to the plane and would be better off used to protect the engines!

[@williamromine5715]

For some reason, I always thought the engines were heavily armored. It only makes sense that engines needed protection. I didn't know that the recomendation called for more armor of the engines at the expence of crew armor. I can see why it was not done. The morale of the crew would have taken a big hit. Doing both would have affected both range and weight of bombs.

[@1977Yakko]

Interesting how changing the armor locations might've made a difference. The crews would've warmed up to it if/when there was a noticeable increase in bomber survivability. I think it was sort of the same in the Pacific when the bombers changed tactics to night bombing. The crews thought it was suicide to remove so many guns and fly at night but it was hard to argue with the result when so many Japanese cities were laid to waste.

[@gort8203]

Yes, very interesting, and I appreciate that you said "might have" instead of "would have". Putting myself in place of a crewman instead of a statistician or senior commander, I'm not sure the crews would have warmed up to the idea. Their moral was on a knife edge to begin with. Not only were they aware that they were statistically unlikely to complete their tours, but sitting helplessly while hot metal projectiles flew all around your soft pink body must be a frighteningly stressful experience. I think the crew armor must have done a lot to support morale under such circumstances. If this study is right and they had armored the engines at the expense of the crew positions, more bombers would have made it home, but they would probably have been carrying more dead and wounded crewmembers. Some might prefer to bail out of a burning plane and spend the rest of the war as a POW rather than make it home to spend the rest of their life crippled by a grievous injury. Spaatz kept his finger on the pulse of crew moral, which may explain why he seems to have takin no action on Arnold's instruction. A test program would have been interesting, but they were pretty busy at the time.

[@mabbrey]

incredible

[@thomasfx3190]

I’m not sure the mention of survivor bias means the AAF avoided it. Counting bullet holes on planes that made it back just means you’ll put armor where you don’t necessarily need it. If the B-17’s that made it home generally had no engine or flight deck damage then it follows that the aircraft that didn’t make it certainly were hit there. It seems to me that light engine armor from the rear & top with heavy armor on the bottom & front with heavy armor under the crew positions would have been more useful than the all-crew position armor was.

[@glallee]

Did they ever attack the Flak Batteries directly or in support of other bomb missions?

[@briancavanagh7048]

Adding armour protection to the engines as shown in the diagram presents some problems. The frontal area of the engine cannot be armoured due to the airflow required to cool engines. Also the area behind the engine cowling where the cooling flaps are located cannot be totally armoured due to the need to let the cooling airflow escape. Providing armour around the perimeter of the nacelle may not be of that much of a benefit because depending on the direction of fire the adjoining engine/nacelle/wing will provide some shielding. The Pratt Whitney R2800, in the P47, F4U & F6F, has a reputation as a very reliable and strong engine with many instances of a complete cylinder being destroyed but the engine still working allowing the fighter to return to base. Does the Wright R 1820 Cyclone engine in the B17 have a similar reputation? Is there any statistics on the losses of B17s compared to B24s Pratt &Whitney R 1830 due to engine failures? .

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

Your objections make sense. I do not know of the B-17 and B-24 engines as being particularly tough, as they were both turbo supercharged with a lot of airplane to carry very high, so they were probably "taxed" to their limit... You have to realize reciprocity motion makes parts more fragile, and a high engine workload probably reduces the margins of tolerable damage. The 2800 is a case on its own, because its power load could be reduced when mounted on small aircrafts. Even the B-29's 3350s, similar in size and layout to the 2800, were not known as tough, and instead were prone to generate their own fires unassisted by the enemy (about 200 spontaneous engine fire losses out of a 495 total B-29 losses, plus 200 "War Wearies", so 700 write offs out of only 1650 B-29s built by VJ Day... This in barely 6 months of actually intense use. 2250 further B-29s were built in 10 months after the War, and these were way better than the Wartime lemons). The losses on B-29s went down with less taxing low altitude nigh raids, so reducing engine work might make them "tougher"...

[@gort8203]

I think that's a good point that demonstrates how statistics can identify a problem or trend, but solving the problem is not as simple as it seems. In this case it would have required what was an impractical engineering solution. I think this probably explains with Spaatz didn't act on Arnold's instruction to look into this.

[@MarcinP2]

Was reducing formation speed on return evaluated? IIRC it was practiced but it seems like there were still strugglers or was it not at this time?

[@gort8203]

Good question. I believe the standard doctrine was to not reduce speed to allow stragglers to keep up because it exposed the entire formation longer. But did they ever experiment to quantify that choice?

[@archiegeorge3969]

Armoring the engines seems like a real missed opportunity. The lessons learned were definitely applied to modern attack helicopters like the Apache

[@garygenerous8982]

Awesome video! I like the attempt to remove survivor bias from the numbers and the conclusions made seem reasonable. One off topic question I have is, “Is Masters of the Air worth watching?” I really really want it to be as good as BoB and TP but I am concerned that Hollywood has done the usual Hollywood thing of completely ignoring historical accuracy out of laziness, ignorance or to push an agenda. I would really appreciate your take on the show before I commit to paying for and/or watching it.

[@nightjarflying]

Wait until you can watch it for free or binge watch in the Apple TV plus trial period & then cancel. It's not BoB, not even TP & there's far too much obvious CGI - hard to follow the characters in the air & the speed of the Nazi fighters is jacked up to double the reality. Memphis Belle did a better job 34 years ago wiyh a better narrative.

[@ostwelt]

Wouldn't recommend an Apple+ sub just for MoA. Might be worth waiting for the whole run to be available then taking out a 7day free trial to binge watch then cancel. Why not subscribe for it? Because the air combat looks like a game from Hollywood. The actual mock bomber positions are very solid/realistic as are uniforms, locations and even the wearing of oxygen masks etc. However, unlike even the Catch-22 Hulu series they don't have real aircraft with real physics just skies full of CGI - and it shows. IMHO nor are the crew members that sympatico unlike BoB/TP and, obvioulsy are far more in number as they come and go much more quickly :( Watch Wyler's Memphis Belle (1944) documentary, if not already done so, for the real, real thing. He lost cameramen in making this documentary which is much more weight than any graphics effect editor will ever be able to bring to his CGI.

[@lag767]

Thanks!

[@WWIIUSBombers]

Thank you for the channel donation. It is much appreciated!

[@dDoOyYoOuUtTuUbBeE]

Do we know hom many mechanics, pilots, etc. were injured or killed by propellers while planes were on the ground?

[@Compulsive_LARPer]

amazing engaging!

[@gctzx]

4:49 I can't believe this aircraft made it home with damage like that!

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Surely they would have learned to protect engines by mid war, or redesign vulnerable components.

[@Raptor747]

Well, this is definitely surprising. But wouldn't you still need some armor on the flooring to protect the crew, since flak fragments coming from below are so common?

[@nightjarflying]

The flak shrapnel comes from any direction - you can't armour against that. The strategy is to armour the individual crew stations to some extent in some directions. Thus the ball turret gunner is armoured in front as he's supposed to track approaching enemy a/c - there's also sheet steel curving around his posterior & back like a chair.

[@unprofound]

Wow, the report called it. But what a tough sell, to armor the engines at the expense of personnel. Increasing the armor to the engines would have saved lives...but I don't think servicemen would have been able to deal with that.

[@michaelreed8873]

I found that the randomness of the bullet strikes statistically intersting. But, I think it corrleats more to the comment about don’t put armor on the surviving parts, put it on the not obvious parts. Armoring radial engines from frontal attack is nearly impossible, but worth an assessment. As far as crew. I love the PT story. New sailor manning the twin .50’s First action, keeps ducking down. Skipper asks why, “uh, armor plating?” He shows them it is wood! He never did that again, and in all seriousness, the crews would have accepted any armor they had and still fought.

[@JamesParus]

randomness of the bullet strikes is also survivor bias. when the fighter was able to focus it's fire, the bomber didn't make it. Only ones that survived had scattered strikes.

[@tahap5917]

What's the difference between b17 late and b17 why do they call some planes late ?

[@alepaz1099]

It does makes sense to armor the underside and the specially the engines but on the early part of the campaign the main threat was from interceptors, so the original armor scheme was correct 🤷‍♂

[@Splattle101]

OT, but the Operations Analyst, R.G. Gettell, could really write. As somebody who writes and reads for a living, his prose was compact, clear and easy to read. The way he organised and presented ideas suggests he was probably a pretty good analyst, too. It's a model of how official writing should be done, and most modern official writing isn't this good.

[@orbitalair2103]

surprises? yes 2. a) that gun attacks from fighters ended up being essentially evenly distributed across the total aircraft surface, statistically that is. and b) that most flak hits that cause damage from from below the aircraft. Do you have a possible explanation for this, as it seems statistically, above and below should be similar.

[@sophietaylor9753]

Two reasons at least that I can think of: 1. The shells are coming from below with a non-trivial velocity. This biases the direction of the splinters of the flak burst to have an overall upward velocity equal to the shell velocity. 2. As the shells are coming from below, the lower planes will physically intercept some shells before they detonate. Thus, there are less flak explosions on average the higher up the formation you are, assuming the flak has been aimed at the centre of the formation and not above it. Assuming that there is an equal chance of a shell detonating before its targeted altitude versus above its targeted altitude, there will be a number of shells exploding below the formation, but because some of the shells passing through the formation are intercepted, there will be correspondingly fewer shells detonating above the formation. These are just educated guesses, but they seem the most plausible combination of factors.

[@patrickshanley4466]

Awesome. If you armor the engines would it require modification to wing spars, etc.???

[@dukecraig2402]

It'd probably stress the wing spars less, when that same amount of armor is in the fuselage the wing spars are supporting the weight, but when it's shifted to the wings themselves the spars aren't supporting the weight because it's the wings that generate lift, now sitting on the ground would be the opposite, with the weight of the armor in the fuselage the spars aren't supporting it but move it to the wings and they are supporting it.

[@charlesphillips4575]

Makes sense to me. Flack rounds are moving up when they explode, so fragments going up would have more energy than those going down. The bomber is moving forwards adding to the relative velocity of fragments from the front and subtracting from relative velocity of from fragments from the rear. Once the fighter threat had been reduced flack was the big problem, so armouring the front and underside makes sense. If engines were the big cause of bomber losses then armouring them makes sense. However one should not remove armour from the pilots, as that is another place were a little damage can bring the bomber down. More controversially, how about reducing the crew? The waist gunners in particular were poor value. Eliminating them would mean 2 less lives at risk and free up weight to be used elsewhere.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

Waaaay back around 1960 or so, I read a paperback my father had bought on the British Dam Busters. Its introduction to Barnes Wallace included some committee he was on to improve British bomber survival rates. Someone had plotted all bullet and flak holes on bomber silhouettes and everyone agreed that more armor was needed where there was the most damage -- except Barnes Wallace, who pointed out that these holes were self-evidently not very damaging since the bombers had come back. It would be better to put armor where there was no damage, since apparently no planes with damage there had survived. He also pointed out that so much protection had been added to bombers that they were xx mph slower and flew xxxx feet lower, and perhaps it would be better to get rid of all that protection in exchange for flying faster and higher. I don't remember the name of the book now, nor what happened to either of his two suggestions. As to this video, I am most surprised that flak damage was more from below than all around, since gravity would seem to slow down rising fragments and speed up descending fragments. On the other hand, I think I do understand why rising fragments were faster when they did hit -- fragments too far below would never hit the plane, while all descending fragments had a chance, even if they had been slowed down by air resistance to non-dangerous speeds. It also surprises me that fighter guns were so poorly aimed.

[@scullystie4389]

Shooting in a real war is surely harder than it is in a sim... Especially if you're a late war axis aviator with crappy training and bad odds of being able to gain much experience before you're shot down.

[@rippervtol9516]

The key to remember is the velocity of the flack shell itself, when it detonates at the same altitude as the bomber most of the fragments are carried above the bomber by the shell's momentum. if the shell bursts below the bomber the fragments are carried into it. therefor: most flack impacts will be on the lower surface of the aircraft. Think of the flack burst as a cone not a sphere.

[@AudieHolland]

It's difficult enough to properly aim a fighter's guns in daylight conditions.

[@briancavanagh7048]

I recall reading or seeing a video on the Dam Busters where the high loses had an effect on Barnes Wallace. It would be interesting to find out about the meeting where Barnes Wallace suggested removing all the armour if this was before the Dam Buster raids. I believe Barnes Wallace was reluctant to be closely involved with the aircrews in developing new weapons when he found out the loss rate was so high.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

@@rippervtol9516 Excellent point, had forgotten that. Thanks.

[@michaelmatthews5814]

I read somewhere that an officer complained that they needed a way to study the downed aircraft for battle damage if they were ever to develop any good data. The civilian engineer looked at him and said: "No, we need to study the ones that got home. That is where the most useful data can be found."

[@nightjarflying]

Made up conversations with quote marks are annoying.

[@michaelmatthews5814]

How is it made up? @@nightjarflying

[@nightjarflying]

@@michaelmatthews5814 Quote marks are used when we have a verbatim word-for-word transcription. if you’re paraphrasing what someone said, you don’t need quotation marks & you should definitely not use them in a way that suggests you are perfectly recalling what was written about what was said. I'm not doubting your story that you read somewhere, but I disapprove casual use of quotation marks. You could write something like this random example from grammar sites: He asked the nurse where the emergency room was. In that way you're not putting words into peoples mouths. It's journo 101 & it's ignored on YT & the internet at some cost to the truth. Thus we are now stuck with thousands of "historical" quotes that are pure baloney. As to the truth of your report - the officer has a point & the "civilian engineer" has a point too. A lot of useful data about a/c that failed to return was obtained from eyewitnesses, captured enemy personnel & crews returned from POW camps for medical reasons etc. It was by those methods that some pretty basic faults on fighters were cured entirely without examining wrecks - just by analysis of witness accounts. Examples that come to mind: locking of controls on a/c in v. high speed dives, poor positioning of buttons & levers in cockpits, best formations for flying in poor visibility. Examining returned a/c does not get at the whole story for many situations.

[@MichaelSmith-pp3wp]

When the guy who doesn't do clickbait says HE was surprised, I expected to be surprised.

[@Eric-kn4yn]

B29s had panel of armour glass above pilots co pilots instrument panel ??

[@greenleaf239]

I've been wondering if machine gun or cannon rounds from German fighters ever set off one of the bombs in the bomb bay. Or is that even possible?

[@thomasbaagaard]

I have no idea what type of explosives was used, but I would think that it was something that did not detonate by getting hit very very hard... and that need a explosion to set it of. (the detonator) So I would guess that you need something like a 30mm HE round that makes a direct hit on a bomb to have a chance to set it off. But as mentioned, Iam just guessing, based on my experience with modern day explosives as a combat engineer.

[@CH3TN1K313]

The Russian's with their IL-2, did the best job when armoring a plane. They used armor plates of around 8-12mm around the entire engine in place of the standard thin skin of an ordinary plane and below the cockpit, and used a plate between the pilot and tail gunner, a plate behind the tail gunner, and armored glass for the front of the cockpit. This would have been a perfect design philosophy to follow in high altitude level bombers due to the lower velocities of striking projectiles when compared to a CAS aircraft like the IL-2 that was flying at treetop height. I imagine a B-17, B-24, B-25, and the later B-29 would have benefited much more to have an armored plate of around 8-12mm below the nose of the aircraft which included the cockpit, navigator/bombardier, and engineer station, a second plate of around 6-8mm used for the bomb bay doors, and a third plate of around 8-12mm for the rear section that would stretch from the waist gunner positions to the tail gunner. Then I'd use 45-60mm armored glass for the cockpit and tail gunner. All four engines (2 for the B-25) would be covered in 6mm armor plating instead of their sheet metal skin and would include a nose cone on their props that would have a 6mm armor plate as well, similar looking to the nose cones of the Fw-190 props. The armored nose cone would help protect the crank from being damaged, which is one of the few areas of a radial engine that could cause the entire engine to cease operation, since losing pistons is usually ok as long as the crank is operable. However, this might require a redesign of the engine cowling since US radials didn't use nose cones and relied on having as much frontal area of their radials exposed to provide cooling, while the Germans and most Japanese designs using radials, relied on refined nose cones and cowlings with as small of a frontal area as possible, and using high pressure air that was compressed using carefully designed nose cones and engine cowlings to draw air around the cylinder heads for their cooling, with some like the Fw-190 powered by the BMW 801's using a secondary prop/fan within the cowling to help boost the cooling air's pressure. This would complicate a simple design, yet in my opinion the trade off it worth it when it would allow the US bombers to have a better armored plane in general, since losing some cooling due to damage, forcing the engine to run at lower power, is far better than having a burning engine you're praying to extinguish and now have to limp home on one less engine.

[@stevo196two9]

If you had this much armor on the old bombers, it wouldn’t be able to carry any bombs be too damn heavy

[@Tony.795]

That would be way too heavy, B17s could only carry a relatively small amount of of bombs due to all the defensive armament, crew and the existing armor. Weight is the reason why almost no aircraft was armored in any meaningful way.

[@TOFMDrone]

reason to bail out of a bomber anno 2024: -forgetting to clear browser history

[@thurin84]

this was actually quite surprising. but when you think about it, it makes sense for the time. and crew morale may have taken a hit at 1st with the new armoring scheme, but after seeing fewer bombers going down due to fire and become straggler's, it probaby wouldve gone up.

[@gort8203]

And there was no proof that the engines could be effectively armored and substantially reduce the number of stragglers.

[@thurin84]

@@gort8203 well, since they never tried theres no proof it wouldnt have worked either.